1. Possible number of rounds that could be fired per minute (manual or automatic).

"Manual" isn't even a shooting term. Beyond that, anything short of a muzzle loading weapon can be fired as fast as the trigger can be pulled and the
action worked.

2. Magazine size.

Irrelevant to anything that isn't a muzzle loader. It's been demonstrated that a limited magazine capacity does almost nothing to slow down a
proficient shooter, and does only slightly more to slow down a completely novice shooter.

3. Caliber size

What does that matter? A .22 can kill a person as dead as a .45 can.

4. Muzzle velocity

You can easily achieve 1200 feet-per-second from a muzzle loader (which you seem to be trying to chop the 2nd Amendment down to with this post), which
is a muzzle velocity on par with many handguns.

It's funny how the pro-gun nuts skirt the issue:

It's funny how you clearly know next to nothing about firearms beyond that they make loud noises, have no problem showing how little about them you
actually know, and then complain when you don't understand the responses to your ignorant commentary about firearms as if it's somehow everybody
else's fault for knowing what they're talking about.

1. Possible number of rounds that could be fired per minute (manual or automatic).
2. Magazine size.
3. Caliber size
4. Muzzle velocity

It's funny that you continue to show your ignorance after it's been carefully explained to you: Very hard for anyone to own a automatic weapon,
and....there is no such thing as a "manual" gun.

Rounds per minute fired depends on 3 factors:

1) Is the gun semi-automatic or bolt / lever action?

a) Depending on the gun, this won't mater, see the video of me and my son below.

As you can see in the video, I'm able to shoot a double action revolver pretty darn fast.

2) How fast can you pull the trigger? (see above video).

3) How well maintained is the gun? You can get rounds to jam, or stove pipe on you, which completely halts you from shooting until it's clear.

Magazine size:

Varies, and exactly how is limiting it going to stop people from shooting others? You have to be pretty stupid to not realize that you can quickly
eject a spent magazine and load a new one. People that have decided to go mass murder will most likely come with several magazines.

You think these crazy criminals who are already ignoring the law on murder are going to obey a magazine capacity law?

MWAHAHAHAHAHA.

That's the most IGNORANT thinking I've ever seen (except for Flat Earthers).

Caliber size:

You can kill someone instantly with a .22. I can also puncture kevlar with it.

Caliber mostly maters depending upon what you're shooting. People? You can drop them with a .22. Bears and wild boar? Yah, you're going to need
something bigger than a .22

Muzzle Velocity:

Do you even know what you're talking about here? There are a LOT of factors involved that will determine the muzzle velocity of a projectile.

However, all actual bullets have one thing in common: their muzzle velocity will be great enough to puncture flesh and shatter bone. However, here is
some interesting facts for you:

Muzzle velocity of a .45 ACP round from a government issues M1911A1 semi-automatic pistol: 830 feet per second

originally posted by: dfnj2015
It's not my hobby to own guns so I don't really care if they outlaw the AR-15.

You should care about preserving rights a freedoms, even in the face of the reality that a tiny, tiny minority of that 320-million population may
abuse said rights.

As far as I know the 2nd Amendment rights does not mean guns cannot be regulated by laws. Maybe I'm wrong and someone can enlightened if the
2nd Amendment means gun owners have free reign over their hobby.

Definition of infringeinfringed; infringing

transitive verb

1 : to encroach upon in a way that violates law or the rights of another

As you'll note, the "shall note be infringed" references "the right of the people to keep and bear Arms." So, technically speaking, the Second
Amendment provides for the right to keep and bear all unspecified arms.

Now, that doesn't mean that the SCOTUS hasn't ruled against the obvious and allowed for some very onerous restrictions to be placed on this right, but
if you go to the source and read the statements and writings of the Founding Fathers, they were pretty adamant in this being a broad-sweeping right
that could not be...what did Merriam-Webster say...oh yeah, could not be "encroach[ed] upon in a way that violates law or the rights of others."

Gun-control legislation does exactly that--it violates law (the Constitution) and encroaches on the rights of the people to keep and bear and
unspecified type or amount of Arms.

I'm not saying that I agree that people should be able to own nuclear bombs or hellfire missiles, but if restrictions are going to be put on the 2nd
Amendment, it should be done the correct way--through a constitutional convention and make an amendment that further defines which arms are and are
not legal to own by the general public.

The problem is, most of us still hold our freedoms and rights in high enough esteem that it would not pass a constitutional convention, so instead,
legislators at all levels pass laws that violate the 2nd Amendment and hope that no one takes it to the SCOTUS at a time when there is a majority of
constitutionally minded judges. And, sadly, when laws do make it there, some are upheld (incorrectly, IMO) and others are struck down (like outright
bans against concealed carry in states).

It's a crap shoot as to what and when these laws will be upheld or struck down, and that does a disservice to our constitution, which clearly dictates
that our right to keep and bear arms "shall not" (meaning "will not") be infringed, but understand that every infringement is technically
unconstitutional.

Ok, tell me how you regulate a semi auto to X rate of fire. Being that it fires once for every time you pull the trigger, it fires as fast as you
can pull the trigger. So, again, tell me how to regulate that.

Caliber size. What is your idea of a "suitable" caliber? .22? How about deer/moose/elk hunters? Gonna make them shoot a large animal with such a
pitiful round so it will suffer? What about duck hunters? Ever tried to hit a dove/duck or geese with a .22?

The first two seconds of your video sum up my entire feelings on this debate.

The frustrated sigh?

Yah. Comes from arguing with people who think they hold the moral high ground, but in reality they don't know jack about what they are talking
about......and REFUSE to at least educate themselves on the subject, all the while insisting that they must be right.

You'd rather see legislation based on emotion rather than facts and data. For instance, what's your issue with magazine size? Surely, if the shooter
had to keep reloading this might make a difference right? Actually it doesn't. All of the shooters in all the recent mass shootings had to reload at
least once. Most reloaded multiple times. Banning magazines above 10 or 7 won't do anything except make them reload more often. It's not like in the
movies where you can rush him or run away while he's reloading. It takes 2 seconds.

You seem to have no problem acknowledging the fact that you don't know what you're talking about, but then you turn around and seem to think somehow
you know the answers? Maybe you should listen to people who actually are informed on this subject.

Are you writing about regulating a militia? I have no problem regulating the militia, but leave the right to bear arms alone. The right and the
militia are two different things. The right may not be infringed and the militia must be regulated. Can't have much of a militia without some
commanders, leadership and training.

Only someone who believes the politicians will
protect them. Will rescue them, shinning with only
the good intent of Captian Americle. Would think of the right
to defend themselves and thier family in any event
come what may, as nothing more than a hobby.

This content community relies on user-generated content from our member contributors. The opinions of our members are not those of site ownership who maintains strict editorial agnosticism and simply provides a collaborative venue for free expression.